JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
How the Twenty-Second And Twelfth Amendments Prohibit a Third Trump Term
Section 1 of the Twenty – Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, “No person shall be elected to the Office of the President more than twice.” President Donald Trump was elected to the presidency in 2016 and again in 2024 after he was defeated in his bid for re – election in 2020.
The Growing Global Battle for Rare Earth Minerals
Where there’s oil, there’s the United States of America. It’s an old joke, fostered by a century of U.S.-backed coups and military interventions in the name of cheap access to oil reserves. But the age of oil politics may be giving way to a new age of mineral politics.
Strategies for the Democrats for the Democrats to Push Back
Since last year’s election, in which Republicans gained control of all three branches of government, the Democrats have seemed somewhat lost and unable to develop a pushback strategy to counter the new administrations policies. The Op Ed team at USRESIST NEWS has the following suggestions to help the Democratic party get its act together.
MAGA Against College: A Fight for America’s Minds
It is no secret that the past two months of Trump’s second term have rattled both American and international societies to their core. Racing out of the gates, the administration has enacted executive orders and taken initial action against those who stand against its policy agenda; these actions are illegal and fundamentally violate the Constitution.
Where Democrats can aim for the 2026 midterms: House Edition
After two months into Donald Trump’s second presidency, many voters and Congresspeople are already eyeing the 2026 Congressional elections. The November 3rd elections could mark a pivotal moment in President Donald Trump’s second term.
The Reasons We’ve Had a Department of Education
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE), established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, operates to promote student achievement, ensure equal access to education, and enforce federal laws prohibiting discrimination in federally funded programs. Historically, the DOE controls policies related to federal financial aid, collects education data, and administers funding for education research. It notably manages Pell Grants, student loans, Title I programs (support for low-income students), special education through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and oversees compliance with federal civil rights laws in educational institutions.
A Fear-based Immigration Policy (Immigration Policy Brief #142)
Trump’s mass deportation efforts remain ongoing across the U.S., capturing headlines with the arrests of student activists like Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, and the deportation of alleged Tren de Aragua members/Venezuelans legally here on asylum, not to Venezuela but El Salvador, including a U.S. resident misidentified as a gang member. Despite the high-profile raids and fiery rhetoric, government data shows that deportations under Trump still lag behind levels seen under the Biden administration.
A Court’s Options To Enforce Compliance With Court Orders
Under Rule 3.3 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, titled “Candor Toward the Tribunal,” a lawyer has a number of duties when dealing with a court of law. Rule 3.3(a)(1) states “A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer. Additionally, Rule 3.3(a)(3) provides “A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. While these are model rules, each state has a version of these rules, including the section on “Candor Toward the Tribunal,” that all lawyers must abide by when dealing with a tribunal or court.
Trump Administration Changes to the Civil Service
The United States federal civil service stands as the backbone of our nation’s governance, ensuring the implementation of public policies and the delivery of essential services. In recent years, however, this institution has faced unprecedented challenges, with political maneuvers threatening its foundational principles. Understanding the intricacies of civil service employment—including hiring and firing procedures, reporting hierarchies, rights, responsibilities, benefits, and the distinction between civil servants and political appointees—is crucial, especially as these issues have come to the forefront in today’s political climate.
Trump Administration Changes to the Civil Service
Trump Administration Changes to the Civil Service
Brief # 181 Elections & Politics | By Inijah Quadri | March 29, 2025
Summary
The United States federal civil service stands as the backbone of our nation’s governance, ensuring the implementation of public policies and the delivery of essential services. In recent years, however, this institution has faced unprecedented challenges, with political maneuvers threatening its foundational principles. Understanding the intricacies of civil service employment—including hiring and firing procedures, reporting hierarchies, rights, responsibilities, benefits, and the distinction between civil servants and political appointees—is crucial, especially as these issues have come to the forefront in today’s political climate.
Analysis
Hiring Process
Federal civil service positions are traditionally filled through a competitive process designed to uphold merit-based principles, a cornerstone of democratic governance. Vacancies are announced on USAJOBS.gov, the official federal employment portal, where applicants must meet specific qualification standards and often undergo rigorous examinations or assessments. This process is governed by Title 5 of the United States Code, which outlines the rules and regulations for federal employment. However, recent political interventions have sought to undermine this system. The Trump administration’s (during his first term) introduction of “Schedule F,” a classification that would strip certain federal positions of civil service protections, exemplifies such attempts to erode the merit-based hiring process.
Schedule F is a job classification within the excepted service designated for positions of a “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.” Established by Executive Order 13957 in October 2020, Schedule F removed civil service protections from selected positions, allowing political appointees greater authority over hiring and firing. Although initially revoked by President Biden in January 2021, President Trump reinstated Schedule F upon returning to office in January 2025. Critics warn this threatens to further politicize the federal workforce by reducing impartiality and increasing vulnerability to politically motivated dismissals.
Termination Procedures
Terminating a federal employee has historically involved adherence to due process, ensuring protection against arbitrary dismissal. Supervisors are required to provide written notice detailing the reasons for termination, allow the employee to respond, and, in many cases, offer an opportunity for appeal. These procedures are rooted in reforms designed to prevent the patronage systems of the past. Disturbingly, the current administration has launched an aggressive campaign targeting probationary federal employees, those with less than two years of service who typically have fewer protections. While many of them have since been rehired, reports indicate that approximately 25,000 such employees were terminated within the first 100 days of President Trump’s second term, under the guise of reducing government size.
Major agencies affected include the Departments of Treasury, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs. These dismissals were primarily carried out under directives from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), led by Acting Director Charles Ezell, instructing agencies to terminate probationary employees without extensive performance justification. Following legal challenges, federal courts ruled many of these firings unlawful due to insufficient notice and lack of proper authority, resulting in the ordered reinstatement of over 20,000 federal workers, who are currently on paid leave pending final appeals. These actions have led to significant disruptions in public services and have raised serious legal and ethical concerns about the administration’s commitment to fair labor practices.
Reporting Structure
Federal agencies operate under hierarchical structures where civil servants report to supervisors, who in turn report to higher-level officials. This chain of command ensures accountability and efficient decision-making within the agency. However, the recent politicization of the civil service threatens this structure. The administration’s push to convert career positions into political appointments undermines the stability and impartiality of reporting lines, leading to a workforce more susceptible to political pressures rather than dedicated to public service.
Determining Civil Service Staffing Levels
The allocation of civil servant positions within each federal agency is primarily influenced by Congress through the federal budget and appropriations process. While Congress does not typically dictate exact staffing levels, the funding provided in annual appropriations bills sets the financial parameters within which agencies operate. Agency leaders use this funding to determine staffing levels based on operational needs. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) oversees federal hiring practices, ensuring adherence to merit system principles and uniform staffing policies across agencies.
Rights and Responsibilities
Federal employees are entitled to various rights, including protection against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information, as enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). They also have the right to due process in disciplinary actions and the freedom to join or not join unions. Responsibilities include adhering to ethical standards, performing duties efficiently, and upholding the public trust. Alarmingly, these rights are under siege. The administration’s attempts to bypass due process and target employees based on perceived political affiliations threaten the very fabric of our merit-based system, paving the way for a return to discriminatory practices and a culture of fear among public servants.
Benefits
Civil servants traditionally receive a comprehensive benefits package, including health insurance, retirement plans, paid leave, and life insurance. These benefits are designed to attract and retain a competent workforce dedicated to public service. However, the current climate of uncertainty, marked by arbitrary terminations and attacks on job security, jeopardizes these benefits. The erosion of protections not only demoralizes the existing workforce but also deters potential talent from considering public service careers, thereby weakening the government’s ability to serve its citizens effectively.
Distinction Between Civil Service Employees and Political Appointees
Civil service employees are career officials selected through a merit-based system, ensuring continuity and impartiality in government operations. They retain their positions across different administrations, providing stability and institutional memory. In contrast, political appointees are selected by the president or agency heads to implement the current administration’s agenda, with their tenure typically ending with the appointing authority’s term. This system is designed to balance the need for both stable governance and the implementation of elected officials’ policies. However, the current administration’s blatant disregard for this balance, through efforts to blur the lines between career civil servants and political appointees, threatens to politicize the bureaucracy and erode public trust in government institutions.
Policy Suggestion
In light of these troubling developments, it is imperative to enact robust legislative measures that fortify the merit-based principles of our civil service. Congress must pass laws that unequivocally protect federal employees from politically motivated dismissals and ensure that any attempts to reclassify positions, such as “Schedule F,” are subject to stringent oversight and approval processes. Additionally, strengthening the independence and authority of oversight bodies like the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is crucial to safeguard the rights of civil servants and maintain the integrity of public administration. Only through such decisive actions can we preserve a nonpartisan, effective, and just civil service that truly serves the interests of all citizens.
Engagement Resources
- USAJOBS (https://www.usajobs.gov/): The federal government’s official employment site.
- Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (https://www.opm.gov/) : Oversees federal human resources and provides policy guidance.
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (https://www.eeoc.gov/): Enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.
- Federal Employee Education and Assistance Fund (FEEA) (https://feea.org/): Provides scholarships and emergency assistance to federal employees.
- National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) (https://www.narfe.org/): Advocates for federal employee benefits and provides resources.
Ukrainians Views on the Trump-Zelensky Meeting in the Oval Office
Ukrainians Views on the Trump-Zelensky Meeting in the Oval Office
Foreign Policy Brief # 196 | By Yelena Korshunov | March 31,2025
Featured Photo:
Many Ukrainians closely followed President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to Washington, where Ukraine and the United States planned to sign an agreement on rare earth metals. According to the American side, this deal was intended to pave the way for a ceasefire in Ukraine. However, a verbal spat between President Donald Trump, Vice President James Vance, and President Zelensky turned everything upside down. The conflict appeared to be premeditated by President Trump’s team. Millions of stunned and embarrassed viewers in the U.S., Ukraine, and around the world watched the broadcast as the meeting devolved into mockery, with ridiculing Zelensky’s lack of a suit followed by Vance’s rough abruption of Ukrainian President’s speech blaming him in a lack of saying “thank you”. Consequently, the agreement was not signed, and Zelensky left the White House early. Ukrainians’ opinions on the controversial meeting were divided; some criticized Zelensky’s behavior, while others fully supported him.
Zelensky’s closest allies—head of the Presidential Office Andriy Yermak, Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, Minister of Internal Affairs Ihor Klymenko, and head of the Servant of the People parliamentary faction David Arakhamia—commented on the visit and voiced their support for the president. They emphasized the importance of real security guarantees for Ukraine.
Andriy Yermak expressed gratitude to the American people for their support, writing on Telegram, “Security is not just a word. It is life. It is a future without sirens, without losses, without fear for those we love. Without real guarantees, war will return. It always returns to where there is a chance for a new attack.” He added, “We are grateful to those who stand with us, to those who understand that Ukraine is not just a point on the map. It is Minas Tirith [‘Tower of Guard’ or ‘Tower of Watch’ from J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth], standing against evil.”
David Arakhamia echoed Yermak’s sentiments, thanking American people for their support and stating, “Our president is a rock, and few leaders in the world can match his fortitude. He genuinely wants to end this war, not settle for a temporary pause that may seem convenient to some.”
Ukrainian journalist Sergey Rudenko pointed out that Trump’s actions stemmed from his inability to fulfill promises to end the war in Ukraine. He said, “Trump lacks the strength to stand up to Putin or to deliver on his promise to end the war. What we witnessed on the evening of February 28 was a performance orchestrated by Trump and Vance. They didn’t want an agreement on mineral resources; they wanted a scapegoat for their failures. They chose Zelensky.”
Despite the failed negotiations, Ukrainian Prism Foreign Policy Council expert Sergey Gerasimchuk noted that Ukraine’s participation in talks provided leverage. “Ukraine can now reject any proposal, whether from Putin or Trump. Europe will undoubtedly be present at the negotiating table, as European leaders have consistently backed Zelensky’s stance on leadership and security. Neither the Kremlin nor the White House can ignore this support,” he told Deutsche Welle[a Germany’s international broadcaster and a news portal].
Maria Berlinskaya, head of the Center for the Support of Aerial Intelligence, acknowledged that many Ukrainians are weary of the war and might support any resolution, but she warned against this mindset. On Facebook, she cited Winston Churchill, saying, “He who chooses shame over war will ultimately face both.” She added, “It seems we refused to accept shame.”
Volodymyr Viatrovych, a member of Ukraine’s opposition faction ‘European Solidarity,’ praised Zelensky for defending the truth about the war. According to him, the White House preferred not to hear it. “Trump and Vance spread lies about the war, hoping Zelensky would publicly accept them. Fortunately, he did not. Truth is one of our most valuable resources,” Viatrovych posted on Facebook.
A recent poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that 50% of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions under any circumstances, even if it prolongs the war. Conversely, 39% are willing to cede some territories to achieve peace and preserve independence.
Here are statements from Ukrainian survey participants:
- Anton from western Ukraine: “I am 30 years old and originally from a small town in the Kherson region, now under Russian occupation. My parents and brother escaped to Germany, but my grandparents refused to leave. I moved to western Ukraine after the invasion. I see a contradiction among people who want Ukraine to reclaim its territories but are unwilling to sacrifice themselves or their loved ones. I believe territorial concessions are inevitable. War devastates society, the economy, and institutions. Even in the best-case scenario, a hollow victory with a shattered nation would be no victory at all.”
- Katya from Kherson: “Giving up territories means abandoning hundreds of thousands of people who are waiting and believing in liberation.”
- Yana from Crimea: “I have lived under occupation for 11 years. Although I cannot leave, Crimea is my home. I hope it will be Ukrainian again, but I understand if the government makes concessions to save lives.”
- Irina from Odessa: “I hope America helps Ukraine end the war at any cost. Everyone is exhausted. There are barely any men on the streets, and missile strikes are constant. It’s terrifying.”
- Tatyana from Kyiv region: “Conceding territories is unacceptable. Russia is a terrorist state. Today it’s four regions; tomorrow it could be the whole country. The world’s passive response emboldens them.”
Meanwhile, on March 20, Russia’s government-run company Dom.RF published a list of cities where Russians could purchase homes under a preferential mortgage program. The list included Ukrainian cities like Kherson, Kramatorsk, and Sloviansk—locations not even under Russian control.
While the American President weakens alliances with Canada and Europe and removes sanctions on Russia, Moscow’s relentless shelling continues to destroy Ukrainian cities and claim lives.
Engagement Resources
- Zelensky describes Oval Office meeting as ‘regrettable,’ says he is ready to negotiate peace, https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/04/europe/zelensky-trump-argument-comment-ukraine-intl/index.html
- Read TIME’s Latest Interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskym https://time.com/7271480/zelensky-transcript-trump-white-house/
Zelensky ready to work under Trump’s “strong leadership”, https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c981p3dxnent
Where Democrats Can Aim for in the 2026 Midterms: Senate Edition
Where Democrats Can Aim for in the 2026 Midterms: Senate Edition
Brief # 180 Elections & Politics | Nate Iglehart | March 31, 2025
Featured Photo: Wisconsin Examiner
Summary
After two months into Donald Trump’s second presidency, many voters and Congresspeople are already eyeing the 2026 Congressional elections. The November 3rd elections could mark a pivotal moment in President Donald Trump’s second term.
The Senate in particular plays a very important role in checking the executive branch’s power. Between confirming appointments of federal judges, ratifying treaties negotiated by the president, and conducting impeachment trials, it plays a vital role in government.
On each of these fronts, President Donald Trump has been on the offensive; attacking federal judges, calling for their impeachments, and signing treaties with various foreign powers. If Democrats can retake control of the Senate in 2026, they will have a viable avenue to oppose Trump’s agenda outside of litigation.
Analysis
The Democrats currently control 45 seats, with 2 independent seats who often vote alongside them, to Republicans’ 53. They would need to control 51 seats, a net gain of essentially 4, for a majority due to JD Vance’s tie-breaking power.
Now, of the 100 seats in the Senate, there are 33 up for election this cycle, with 2 open due to special elections in Florida and Ohio. 13 of those seats are held by Democrats, with 9 in firmly blue areas. Of the remaining 4, Minnesota and New Hampshire lean blue, while Georgia and Michigan are considered complete toss-ups.
In Michigan, Democrat Gary Peters said he would not seek reelection in 2026, setting the stage for a tight race. Democrat Elissa Slotkin won the other Senate seat in 2024 by less than four-tenths of a percentage point, and Republican Mike Rogers, the runner-up who’s teased another run in 2026, represented the best showing in a Senate race by Republicans in Michigan since 1994. While the battleground state voted red in 2024, the race will still likely be exceedingly close in lieu of an incumbent who’s track record can speak for itself, especially as Pete Buttigieg and Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer have both passed on running.
Georgia’s seat is particularly interesting. Democrat Jon Ossoff won his very first term there last year by 1.4%, a mere 55,000 votes. Georgia has been a battleground state for the last two elections, voting blue in 2020 and then red by 2.2% in 2024. While Sen. Ossoff’s ability to win in a Trump-leaning state is impressive, his campaign seems to be taking a combative stance against the president. Billing himself as a bipartisan public servant the first time around, he has called Trump corrupt and said he is poisoning democracy more recently. His approach may galvanize disillusioned Republican voters to help secure Georgia, but it is too soon to tell.
In terms of offensive chances, most of the Republican seats up for grabs are in strongly red areas. But the Democrats are eyeing Maine, North Carolina, and Ohio.
While Maine voted blue in 2024, analysts say that Republican Susan Collins, who is seeking her sixth term and has been a perennial “white whale” of the Democrats, has a decent chance to retain her seat against two main challengers. Phillip Rench, a 37-year-old former engineer at Elon Musk’s SpaceX, is running as an independent, while Democrat Natasha Alcala is running on a platform focused on infrastructure, programs for veterans and the disabled, and elderly care. But between a possible blue wave and Sen. Collins’ sometimes tumultuous relationship with the GOP (she frequently crosses party lines and voted for Trump’s second impeachment), even Republican analysts have cited it as one of the 3 seats to defend in 2026.
North Carolina’s race showcases a wide range of challengers to Republican Thom Tillis, including Lara Trump, former Democratic governor Roy Cooper, and former Democratic congressman Wiley Nickel. Cooper is a popular challenger, having won the governorship in 2016 and 2020 while Trump was on the ballot, and is an accomplished fundraiser in a state that is losing faith in Sen. Tillis, who has a 25% approval rating.
Finally, in Ohio, Democrats are apparently lobbying former Sen. Sherrod Brown to run against Republican Sen. Jon Husted, who was appointed to the seat after JD Vance left for D.C. to become Vice President. Last year, Brown lost his seat by 3 points to Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, a strong candidate in a slowly red-shifting state. Tim Ryan, a former Ohio representative, also has expressed interest in the Senate seat.
But at the end of the day, it is simply too far down the road to make any accurate predictions in any races. Even polls right before the elections can be off, as seen in the 2024 elections with the president, but also with the predictions of a “red wave” that never materialized in 2022. While only time will tell who gets the Senate in 2026, the races are shaping up to be wildly expensive and more important than ever.”
Engagement Resources:
- Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the Center for Politics is a comprehensive, nonpartisan political analysis newsletter.
- Cook Political Report is another independent, non-partisan newsletter that analyzes U.S. elections and campaigns.
- S. Vote Foundation is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan public charity founded in 2005 that provides voting services and election data.
Tangled Part 1: How Trump uses Machiavelli to Win An Election
Tangled Part 1: How Trump uses Machiavelli to Win An Election
Elections & Politics Brief #179 | By: Rudolph Lurz | March 26, 2025
Featured Photo by Salon.com
Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince provides a playbook for rulers to seize, hold, and consolidate power. Donald Trump’s second ascent to the Oval Office demonstrates that Machiavelli’s lessons are just as valid in 2025 as they were in 1515. The Prince is frequently summarized with the adage of “the ends justify the means”. Its power goes much deeper than that. Machiavelli does not specifically advocate for immorality. He stresses the need for amorality. A ruler should be primarily concerned with two things: the prosperity and security of his people. For a leader, there is no right or wrong. There is only what is necessary to secure wealth and safety. Machiavelli argues that the appearance of virtue is more important than being virtuous. However, when the time comes to advance the cause of the nation, the ruler must be prepared to do things that would be considered evil by outside observers. In short, most people might claim to want leaders who are honest, kind, virtuous, and temperate. History shows, even in 1515, that they support leaders who provide them with prosperity and security, regardless of their sins or personal flaws. As Machiavelli notes,
“As a prince is forced to know how to act like a beast, he must learn from the fox and the lion; because the lion is defenseless against traps and a fox is defenseless against wolves…Those who simply act like lions are stupid. So it follows that a prudent ruler cannot, and must not, honour his word when it places him at a disadvantage and when the reasons for which he made his promise no longer exist…Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are. And those few dare not gainsay the many who are backed by the majesty of the state. In the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no court of appeal, one judges by the result. So let a prince set about the task of conquering and maintaining his state; his methods will always be judged honourable and will be universally praised” (pp. 57-58).
Machiavelli also advocated for leaders to make use of the patriotic symbols, songs, and festivals of their states. The goal of using pageantry to consolidate power was simple. By tying one’s own image to the patriotic symbols of the country, princes could become synonymous with their states. In doing so, a successful prince could turn political opponents into traitors, and have his supporters fight for him with the fervor they normally reserve for their country.
Does this sound familiar? President Trump literally hugs the American flag at rallies. Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the U.S.A.” is the most popular anthem heard by his crowds. “U.S.A.!” chants resound through the arena, as if it were the Olympics instead of a political event.
President Trump was burned late in the 2020 campaign by security and prosperity concerns. He made both his primary punchlines in 2024. They will continue to be the stories in the 2028 campaign, unless the Democrats can finally find a response to a 500-year old power tactic.
Analysis
Former President Joe Biden misread his election victory in 2020 as a mandate for his vision for the country. In reality, President Trump was cruising towards re-election for a majority of the primary campaign. Unemployment was low, the economy was doing well, the leader of ISIS was dead, and the United States was winding down its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Covid-19 and the civil unrest following the death of George Floyd completely changed the equation. Millions of Americans were sick. Thousands of Americans were dead. Unemployment surged to double digits. Riots ravaged major cities across the country as the nation burned, causing billions of dollars in damage.
President Trump suddenly crashed to 0-2 on the Machiavelli indicators.
The defeat of President Biden and Vice President Harris in the 2024 campaign could be traced to similar indicators. President Trump was more creative in his deployment of these attacks, because he had to rely on the perception of insecurity and poverty rather than the stark realities that sunk his 2020 re-election campaign. The S&P 500 rose 57.9% during Biden’s single term in office. Not as strong as the 66% growth from President Trump’s first term, but still respectable. Unemployment rates were at 4.1% at the end of Biden’s term.
If Americans used these statistics or solely viewed their 401K plans to gauge the strength of the economy, Vice President Harris might have been sworn into office on January 20th.
President Trump relied on inflation to attack President Biden and later Vice President Harris. Inflation was a global issue with complex roots as countries emerged from the Covid-19 pandemic. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) noted these issues and also predicted a cooling of these inflationary trends in October 2024, declaring that the global war against inflation was “almost won”.
The populace is not logical, as Machiavelli recognized 500 years ago. Through consistent messaging, President Trump laid the inflation solely at the feet of the hapless Biden/Harris administration. It is still his tactic, even after re-taking the Oval Office. Trump noted as inflation began to rise again this February that he had nothing to do with it, and that the environmental and DEI measures instituted during the Biden Administration were the cause.
No matter what effect Trump’s tariffs have on inflation or consumer prices, any economic downturns will be placed on Joe Biden’s shoulders. It’s an absurd word scramble that normally includes terms like Bidenomics, DEI, Green New Deal, AOC, liberals, and woke.
Security was also used by President Trump to attack President Biden. Trump used immigration as his primary weapon. Monthly encounters of migrants at America’s southern border surged to 301,981 in December 2023, and were consistently over 200,000 per month for most of Biden’s term in office. Those monthly numbers were under 100,000 for most of Trump’s first term, with a high of 144,110 crossings reported in May 2019. President Trump frequently referred to these crossings as an “invasion” and used incidents like the horrific murder of Laken Riley to frame Biden as complicit in the violence caused by migrants.
President Biden and others on the left countered with statistics demonstrating that undocumented migrants were almost 40% less likely to commit crimes than native-born U.S. citizens. American voters were not comforted by these statistics. Any crimes committed by migrants were framed as preventable by Trump’s campaign. If the border was secure, and no migrants crossed, Laken Riley would be alive.
Monthly border encounters had already dropped to 107, 473 by August 2024. Violent crime fell by nearly 50% between 1993 and 2022. The Biden/Harris administration should have been on solid ground on Machiavelli’s indicators from The Prince.
I hope President Trump gave his communication team a set of steak knives. They successfully created the image of a bankrupt country overrun by violent criminals. Biden and Harris were complicit in America’s fall and only President Trump could fix it.
How does the Democratic Party move forward when even basic facts are now doubted by a large percentage of the electorate? They need to use Machiavelli’s playbook against President Trump and stop wasting airtime and bandwidth on things that people just do not value.
Safeguarding democracy should be important. Women’s healthcare should be important. The moral character of a leader should be important. The environment should be important.
Machiavelli demonstrates concretely that security and prosperity are paramount to whether a leader remains in power. Americans do not like President Trump. They voted for him anyway.
Democratic strategist James Carville has part of the answer. “It’s the economy, stupid” was the tagline Bill Clinton utilized to comfortably win elections. Carville recently noted that the Democratic Party lost the economic narrative, and with it the election. If it wants to win again, it must reclaim that message and make it resonate with the working class.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz made several missteps as Kamala Harris’s choice for VP, but he was dead right on a crucial one late in the campaign. The Democratic Party must retake the flag, family values, and football. Trump has used Machiavelli’s playbook to imbue himself into the patriotic symbols of the country. His supporters view opposition as treason.
If the Democrats want to win again, they must untangle that web and separate Trump from Old Glory. They must tell MAGA Republicans, as Robert Redford’s character says at the end of the film, The Last Castle, “It’s not your flag.”
It belongs to all of us.
Every morning on my way to drop my kids off at school, I pass by a house with an American flag flying on a pole, and a Trump flag flying right below it. On windy days, those two flags become tangled.
Trump has tangled himself into the symbols that Americans love. For Democrats to win, they must win on the messages of prosperity and security. 2024 showed that we care about prices and security more than democratic traditions and morality. To win in 2026 and 2028, Democrats must untangle this mess and do a better job of showing how they would keep Americans safe and put a chicken in every pot.
There’s no excuse. The GOP’s Machiavellian playbook has an ending that can be seen from 500 years away. It’s time to use it against the party which has abused it.
Engagement Resources
- Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince: The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Prince, by Nicolo Machiavelli
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection Statistics: CBP Enforcement Statistics | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Introducing Gulf of America – from the person who gave us Trump Tower
Introducing Gulf of America – from the person who gave us Trump Tower
Environment Brief #178 | By: Todd J. Broadman | March 26, 2025
Featured Photo by Guide of the World
For the last 475 years, the expanse of ocean from western Florida to southern Texas has been called the “Gulf of Mexico.” English geographer Richard Hakluyt referred to the “Gulfe of Mexico” in his work of 1589. With the stroke of a pen on February 9, 2025, the President of the United States signed Executive Order 14172 and renamed the body of water “Gulf of America.” In addition to “restoring American pride,” President Trump justified the name change by referencing territorial rights over much of the area and that those waters have “long been an integral asset to our once burgeoning Nation and has remained an indelible part of America.” Trump considers the Gulf a business asset.
Back in 2010, comedian Stephen Colbert offered the initial suggestion of a name change in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf saying that “I don’t think we can call it the Gulf of Mexico anymore. We broke it, we bought it.” He joked that a “Gulf of America fund” be initiated to help fund cleanup.
The name of the highest peak in North America for close to 1000 years had been called Denali by the native Athabaskan people. Denali means “the great one.” 120 years ago, a gold prospector named William Dickey, saw the great 20,310-foot mountain and named it McKinley after the then Republican presidential nominee and then Congress codified the moniker along with land designated as the McKinley National Park. In returning the mountain and National Park to their original Native names in 2015, President Barack Obama reflected that McKinley had “never set foot in Alaska.” Regardless of McKinley’s distant relationship to that significant landmark, President Trump, in one of the first acts on his return to the White House, issued an executive order restoring McKinley as the mountain’s official name. (The national park that surrounds it will remain Denali National Park).
In the minds of Americans, where symbols take on meanings, these name changes are intended to deliver potent messages. With the names Mexico and Denali which connote America’s historical embrace of plurality, the new administration is communicating that it is symbolically important to supplant that value with non-Native, non-foreign elements. Naming conventions in this sense are intended to reinforce American superiority both in ethical and subtle racial contexts. These tacit assumptions do make their way through to the public. As Nicole Hassenstab of American University explains, this is “a way to assert civilizational identities by selectively and symbolically valorizing certain historical heritages over others.”
There is the assumption that to name a thing you must first have knowledge of it. This knowledge conveys an interpretive authority. The renaming of Ayers Rock in Australia to its original Uluru or the city of Bombay back to Mumbai follows this line of reasoning, and is why the recent name changes imposed by Trump do not.
Following the executive order, Google made the decision to change the name on its widely used maps application. Many major media outlets refused to adopt the new moniker – at some cost. Associated Press (AP), the independent global news organization, chose to stay with the name Gulf of Mexico based on a uniformity of style and was promptly barred from the White House press corps. AP has sued and claimed that “it is essential in a democracy for the public to have access to news about their government from an independent, free press.” AP and other major news outlets see the move as a constitutional threat.
Amongst other news organizations adoption, as expected, follows editorial bias. Fox News and Breitbart enthusiastically made the switch to Gulf of America, as did Yellowhammer and 1819 News. Reuters and the New York Times line-up with AP. The Times explained that the gulf “is an international body of water that has been known as the Gulf of Mexico for several hundred years. We will continue to follow common usage in updating our style guidance like we have done in the past with other areas of the world.”
ANALYSIS
President Trump’s initiative for these symbolic changes is a personal one and is consistent with the naming of his business entities to build the Trump brand. Authoritarian leaders see this process “as a tool for constructing new notions of national identity and promoting certain historical narratives while denying, suppressing, or erasing others.” The historical narrative does not suit President Trump. That story begins in the 1550s with the Aztec culture and their named land Mexica and extended to the Gulf when early Europeans began mapping the area. The Gulf of Mexico was established as a maritime reference with the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) for about five centuries.
When AP executive editor Julie Pace made clear that the White House’s decision to bar them from the Oval Office is a First Amendment violation, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt insists that the Gulf of America is a “fact” and pretends there is no reasonable explanation “why news outlets don’t want to call it that but that is what it is.” In AP’s defense, the White House Correspondents Association added that there was an undercurrent of revenge in that the administration “publicly admitted they are restricting access to events to punish a news outlet for not advancing the government’s preferred language.”
Also lined-up in AP’s defense are Reuters, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. The latter justified their stance saying “the body of water is not solely within the United States’ jurisdiction and the name Gulf of America might confuse global readers.” The United Kingdom was typical of others in the international community in stating that they will not be using the name Gulf of America unless and until it becomes the common name across the English-speaking world, adding that Trump lacks the authority to make that change. USA Today/Gannett took a unique position planning to walk the fence-line between both terms: the “more common” Gulf of Mexico and the one used by the U.S. government. In a sampling of registered U.S. voters, the gauge of popular sentiment – according to Harvard CAPS, Harris Poll, and Marquette University – towards the change indicates that three-quarters of voters oppose the new moniker.
In summary, there is very little support to legitimize the Gulf of America from bodies within the U.S. and international bodies. The Trump administration made this move without diplomatic consultation of Mexico, Cuba, and other Mesoamerican and Caribbean countries who are directly implicated. The administration also failed to evaluate the impacts for the entire education field, public and private.
One wonders if the Gulf of America was chosen as a compromise over a preference for the Gulf of Trump. Is Mount McKinley but a brief segue to Mount Trump? The history in this regard is instructive: McKinley was first summited by Hudson Struck in 1913 and shortly thereafter Struck reflected on “a certain ruthless arrogance” that “contemptuously ignores the native names of conspicuous natural objects.” Which is another way of saying that packed into a name ought to be a deeper connection to a people, as well as the seldom seen trait in this current administration: humility.
Engagement Resources:
- https://en.wikipedia.org benefits readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge. Hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia consists of freely editable content.
- https://apnews.com/ founded as an independent news cooperative, whose members are U.S. newspapers and broadcasters, steadfast in our mission to inform the world.
- https://www.offshore-mag.com/ is a leading source of timely, actionable and relevant news and technical content for the offshore oil, gas and renewable energy industries.
Argentinian Resistance: Austerity’s Failures
Argentinian Resistance: Austerity’s Failures
Foreign Policy Brief #195 | By: Damian DeSola | March 20, 2025
Featured Photo by NPR
The Argentinian people have had enough. On 12 March 2025, the people of Buenos Aires took to the street to protests President Javier Milei’s policy of extreme austerity. The protesters showed anger at the weakness of their pension system exposed by these policies. In reaction, the government sent out police; senior citizens and soccer fans were then blasted with firehoses, teargassed, and shot with rubber bullets Ghastly images and videos have emerged of badly wounded protesters voicing their desperation to the riot police.
These protests have been occurring weekly, but the gathering on March 12th showed a new level of protestor and police violence. Over 120 protesters were detained, with 20 protesters suffering injuries. The administration blames the violence on “hooligans”, referring to soccer fans that had joined the pensioners in their protest.
Elected in 2023, taking office 10 December of the same year, Javier Milei ran on the idea of “chainsaw economics”, cutting government spending at an indiscriminate and rapid pace, as the solution for the massive inflation since the COVID-19 pandemic. In some ways, these policies have been a success. Inflation has steadily decreased to 66.9% as of February 2025, levels not seen since June/July 2022. Though, in February, reports show inflation modestly increased, as prices remained high. Argentina’s GDP growth also shows signs of improving, finally no longer maintaining a deficit, and has of recent officially escaped its recession.
These successes have come at a cost to the Argentine people. The Universidad Católica Argentina reports that although Argentinians now have more cash, the cost of public services, housing prices, and food insecurity have all increased from 2023 to 2024. Meaning that measurements of poverty based on held monies may have decreased from 56% to 33%, but poverty based on a variety of factors including purchasing power has overall increased from 39.8% to 41.6%. Furthermore, pensions have not kept up with these austerity measures, leaving 60% of pensioners receiving the minimum amount of $340 per month. Milei vetoed a bill in 2024 that would have increased pensions by 8%, a fraction of what is necessary.
President Milei has also been the target of ire from the Argentine people for his connections with a cryptocurrency scandal. When on 14 February 2025, the “memecoin” $LIBRA was opened for trading, Milei tweeted support for the cryptocurrency, causing the valuation to increase to over $4.5 billion. The initial investors that held the currency before Milei’s tweet sold their ownership once the value skyrocketed, causing a massive decrease in valuation to around $18 million.
Some have accused Milei of intentionally participating in a “rug pull”. This term is associated with short term crypto projects that seek to artificially increase the value of a new coin via the credibility of a major figure, like Milei, so that the initial investors see massive gains that are then cashed out upon, costing the later buyers all their investments.
The Milei government refutes this and claims that it is just a coincidence. They argue that the free expression of the president should not be scrutinized for supporting private activities, comparing the original tweet, that was taken down hours after these events transpired, to visiting a factory, framing it as not an explicit endorsement.
The Argentine judicial system is now seeking to arrest the US citizen Hayden Mark Davis, the principal architect of $LIBRA. There have also been calls to impeach Milei as a result of this scandal.
Analysis
The citizen protests are a result of the massive austerity measures that Javier Milei has taken since his election. While the initial results have shown promise in terms of inflation statistics and deficit control, the fact remains that much of this came at the sacrifice of popular social programs and vital regulations.
Javier Milei refers to his ideology with the fringe ultra-right label of “anarcho-capitalist”. The ideology itself is fascinating in the way one would find a meteor crater, interesting in its impact but nonetheless destructive. For proponents of the ideology and of Milei, destruction is a good thing, and it is no wonder that a chainsaw has become the symbol of this contemporary anarcho-capitalist movement.
An anarcho-capitalist like Milei, and some would say Elon Musk, values mass removal of regulations on companies as a way of stimulating economic growth. The ideology is in effect, neoliberalism accelerated to its absolute. Based on the concept that a free market can exist and that it is the most effective societal force to organize and distribute resources, an anarcho-capitalist seeks to remove any hinderances to the market to ensure its absolute liberty to fulfill what they see as its natural functions. In practice, this leads to removals of all labor protection laws, social safety nets, and of governmental regulations and their enforcement mechanisms. The ultimate expression of this ideology is in the name, anarchism, where no government exists, and society is entirely guided by the “free market.”
Milei claims that this period of economic turmoil will be overshadowed by the trickling down of wealth that comes with improved corporate investments. However, it is perfectly clear to anyone who can follow the past forty years of neoliberalist deregulation and assumptions of trickle-down economics that such returns for the working class will be minute. The country of Argentina will have a stable economy perhaps, but it will be at the sacrifice of the working class’s economic security and protection from exploitation of these newly enriched corporate entities.
The anarcho-capitalist ideology is guided by the interest of the corporate class that benefits most from these policies. In turn, social policies, like prohibiting abortion, reduction of women’s rights, climate change denial, anti-sex education, become mainstream and more likely to be implemented. From an economic standpoint, the support systems, like pensions that cost corporations’ money, are demolished wholesale on the pretext that retirees should have saved more or worked harder; the working class is blamed for their poverty.
Whether Milei genuinely believes that anarcho-capitalism is effective at governing society, that he is pushing these policies at the behest of corporate entities, or both, matters little. What matters is how the people perceive and feel about these policies; from what was seen on March 12th, they are not happy. They took to the streets and will keep doing so as these policies persist.
Engagement Resources
- Encyclopedia Brittanica explaining anarcho-capitalism
- HelpArgentina, a nonprofit organization that supports social programs across Argentina
- Journal of Democracy’s profile on Javier Milei
Legal Battles: The Quiet Yet Powerful Resistance of the State Attorneys General
Legal Battles: The Quiet Yet Powerful Resistance of the State Attorneys General
Elections & Politics #176 | By: Morgan Davidson | March 21, 2025
Featured Photo: Quotidiano
On Saturday, March 15, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a rarely used wartime power last exercised during World War II, to detain individuals from an “enemy nation” solely based on their country of origin, without trial. The next day, March 16, Trump ordered the deportation of 238 alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang from Venezuela to El Salvador.
Federal Judge James Boasberg intervened, placing a hold on both the deportations and the administration’s invocation of wartime powers. The Trump administration, however, defied the court order, citing legal technicalities. Escalating the confrontation, Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment, prompting a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, a fellow Republican, who criticized the president’s attempt to undermine judicial independence. This defiance is part of a broader and increasingly troubling pattern of Trump minimizing or outright disregarding judicial checks on executive power.
In his inaugural address, where he foreshadowed invoking the AEA, Trump also proposed repealing naturalized citizenship, a direct challenge to the 14th Amendment. This immediately sparked a legal firestorm, with state attorneys general (AGs) leading the AGs to file lawsuits to challenge the administration in court. These AGs have been at the forefront of legal battles against the Trump administration on various issues, including mass federal layoffs (DOGE dismissals), dismantling the Department of Education, environmental policy rollbacks, and efforts to undermine democratic norms and judicial independence. Examples of the resistance of the AGs are provide below.
Analysis
In early 2025, the Trump administration dismissed thousands of federal probationary employees to shrink the federal workforce. This mass firing prompted 20 state attorneys general, led by Maryland AG Anthony Brown, to sue the administration, arguing that the firings violated federal laws requiring proper procedures and advance notice. The lawsuit also highlighted the economic and social disruptions, particularly in states with a high concentration of federal employees.
A similar coalition of 20 AGs, led by New York AG Letitia James, challenged the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education. This move included firing half of the agency’s workforce. The lawsuit argued that gutting federal education funding would disproportionately harm students with special needs and low-income families while also asserting that the administration lacked the legal authority to dismantle or disrupt the department’s core functions without congressional approval.
In January 2025, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced a freeze on $3 trillion in federal funding, pending a review to ensure compliance with recent executive orders. This action prompted 23 state AGs to file a lawsuit, arguing that the freeze would disrupt essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. The lawsuit contended that the move lacked proper legal authority and would threaten the well-being of millions of Americans dependent on federal programs.
State AGs have also challenged the administration’s handling of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk. In February 2025, 19 AGs sued the administration, alleging that DOGE had been granted unauthorized access to the Treasury Department’s central payment system—potentially compromising the sensitive financial information of millions of Americans. The lawsuit sought to prevent unauthorized disclosures and protect citizens’ privacy.
Meanwhile, Democratic AGs have been vocal about concerns over Trump’s broader attempts to weaken the judiciary and undermine democratic institutions. Arizona AG Kris Mayes has publicly condemned what she views as executive overreach, stressing the need for checks and balances to prevent federal overreach.
The legal resistance spearheaded by state attorneys general has become one of the most effective tools in challenging the Trump administration. These lawsuits uphold the rule of law and constitutional protections and ensure that federal policies align with statutory provisions and democratic principles.
As the Trump administration continues aggressively restructuring federal agencies and policies, state AGs have emerged as critical defenders of institutional integrity and state interests. Whether these legal battles will successfully curb executive overreach remains to be seen. Still, one thing is certain: the courts have become the new frontline in the fight for American democracy.
What remains uncertain is the administration’s willingness to abide by court rulings, as top officials and allies openly challenge judicial authority. Vice President J.D. Vance has urged defiance of the courts: “When the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’” Elon Musk has framed judicial oversight as an existential threat to democracy, declaring, “If ANY judge ANYWHERE can block EVERY Presidential order EVERYWHERE, we do NOT have democracy, we have TYRANNY of the JUDICIARY.” Trump’s Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, has taken it a step further, arguing, “Judges have no authority to administer the executive branch. Or to nullify the results of a national election.” Meanwhile, Trump himself has fueled tensions with attacks on the judiciary, labeling judges and prosecutors “corrupt Democrats” and even calling for the impeachment of judges who rule against him. These statements and actions point to a growing hostility toward judicial checks on executive power, raising serious concerns about the administration’s commitment to the rule of law.
Engagement Resources
- Brennan Center for Justice- Research on executive power, judicial independence, and legal challenges to government overreach. https://www.brennancenter.org/
- Find your Attorney General here: https://www.naag.org/find-my-ag/
- Run for Something- Interested in making a difference in politics? Run for Something helps people run for local and state office. https://runforsomething.net
Musk’s Outrageous Conflicts of Interest
Musk’s Outrageous Conflicts of Interest
Elections & Politics #177 | By: Mindy Spatt | March 20, 2025
Distaste for Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is fueling protests at Tesla showrooms, a boycott of the company’s cars, and a rapidly deteriorating stock price. But Musk can easily make up the losses from the federal government he is gleefully gutting. Musk is poised to continue making billions from federal subsidies and contracts despite the obvious ethical problems.
Analysis
As Elon Musk slashes public programs, threatens social security, and preens and prances at Trump’s side, public outrage grows. Tesla’s stock is plummeting, and protests at Tesla showrooms are escalating in number and intensity. In San Francisco, a few hundred protestors who converged at the Tesla showroom appeared to have the support of most of the pedestrians passing by, who gave them a thumbs-up, and the cars and trucks driving by honked their approval. Even at Tesla’s hometown headquarters in Palo Alto, protesters marching to the building on “buy nothing” day in February were encouraged by much of the traffic going by with honks of support.
In some cases, Tesla cars have been targeted; three Tesla vehicles at a Dedham, Massachusetts, Tesla dealership were vandalized and defaced with spray paint.
More than a dozen shots were fired at a Tesla dealership in Tigard, Oregon, the second such incident at that location in one week, causing damage to cars and store windows. The protests have spread overseas as well 20 Teslas in Belfast had their wing mirrors knocked off, windows smashed, or bodywork dented.
Many Tesla owners have had their cars vandalized, prompting some to put bumper stickers on them disavowing Musk. Trump has taken notice of the protests and losses and filmed a commercial in front of the white house on his billionaire buddy’s behalf, extolling the virtues of Tesla. His affection doesn’t stop there. Attorney General and Trump loyalist Pam Bondi said she is opening an investigation into instances of vandalism at Tesla dealerships just days after President Donald Trump threatened that protesters would go through “hell” and be considered “domestic terrorists.”
Trump needn’t worry about Elon, who remains the richest man in the world and likely to get richer. In his new job as head of DOGE, he can continue to rake in billions of dollars from the federal government even as he slashes the workforce, foreign aid, veteran benefits, school lunches, and anything else he can get his greedy little hands on. According to the Washington Post, Musk’s companies have already received $38 Billion in government support, including NASA’s investment of $15 Billion in SpaceX and $11 Billion in electric car subsidies for Tesla.
SpaceX has benefitted from more than $17 billion in federal contracts since 2015 and was selected a year ago to build a vehicle to bring the International Space Station out of its orbit in 2030 — a deal that could be worth as much as $843 million.
Starlink, the satellite internet service Musk owns already had contracts with several government agencies and was recently installed in the White House- for free, according to Musk. Other federal agencies are also looking into switching to Starklink; apparently, the Internet budget is one thing that won’t be on the chopping block. Musk’s efforts to move the Federal Aviation Agency to Starlink prompted a complaint to the Department of Transportation Inspector General alleging criminal conflicts of interest by the Campaign Legal Center.
“The scope of what Elon Musk stands to gain from directing agency reconstruction cannot be fully stated,” says the Center. “His companies Tesla and SpaceX account for at least $15.4 billion in government contracts over the past decade and span multiple agencies. Any power to influence which agencies must cut costs or how government contracts are doled out opens the door for Musk to enhance his personal fortune.”
Engagement Resources
- Elon Musk Has Grown Even Wealthier Through Serving in Trump’s Administration, Sophia Gonsalves-Brown and Maha Quadri, March 13, 2025, Campaign Legal Center https://campaignlegal.org/update/clc-sues-stop-elon-musk-and-doges-lawless-unconstitutional-power-grab
- Who’s really running the White House — President Trump or unelected billionaire Elon Musk? Call Your Senators Today. Common Cause https://www.commoncause.org/work/fire-elon-musk/
- Donald Trump and Elon Musk are staging a coup. Full stop. It’s time to fight back like our democracy depends on it. Sign up below, and we’ll keep you updated with ways to take action on your home turf. Indivisible https://indivisible.org/coup
The Ripple Effect: DOGE’s Workforce Reduction and Its Impact on Federal Agencies
The Ripple Effect: DOGE’s Workforce Reduction and Its Impact on Federal Agencies
Elections & Politics #178 | By: Inijah Quadri | March 21, 2025
Featured Photo: CNN
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established under the Trump administration and led by Elon Musk, has embarked on an ambitious mission to streamline federal operations by significantly reducing the workforce across various agencies. This initiative aims to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget during the 2025-2026 fiscal year, primarily through substantial layoffs and restructuring efforts. While proponents argue that these measures are necessary to eliminate inefficiencies and reduce government spending, critics warn of potential disruptions to essential public services and the erosion of institutional knowledge within federal agencies.
Analysis
The workforce reductions initiated by DOGE have been both rapid and expansive, affecting numerous federal agencies. For instance, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may experience a 20% reduction in its workforce, primarily affecting enforcement roles. This downsizing has led to the cessation of large-scale audits and unresolved tax cases, potentially undermining tax compliance and increasing the federal deficit. Similarly, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) saw a large number of its staff terminated, impacting essential servicessuch as weather forecasting and environmental monitoring. Notably, the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory announced an “indefinite hiatus” due to staff shortages, raising concerns about the management of invasive species and water quality in the Great Lakes region. Furthermore, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) plans to cut up to 50% of its employees and is likely to close several of its field offices. These reductions could severely impact services amid a national homelessness crisis, affecting policy development, community planning, and fair housing initiatives.
According to public reporting, Elon Musk’s approach to workforce reductions (notably seen during his tenure at Twitter) sometimes follows a data-driven or algorithmic model. This can entail targeting a specified percentage of the workforce for layoffs, with an emphasis on cutting costs swiftly rather than conducting extended, role-specific reviews. Such methods, commonly employed by some Silicon Valley executives and venture capitalists, carry the risk of indiscriminately eliminating critical institutional knowledge and specialized roles essential for maintaining government operations. As expected, being led by Elon, the methodology employed by DOGE follows the same pattern, and it has raised a number of legal and ethical questions.
One notable instance of the impact on critical services involves the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Multiple employees reportedly lost email access before learning they had been terminated, creating confusion in an agency responsible for safeguarding the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. Such abrupt dismissals, had it not been reverted (after a lot of likely-panicked-scrambling by the team that fired them), would have greatly disrupted ongoing projects related to nuclear security, reducing the capacity to manage urgent safety protocols and maintain readiness for nuclear threat deterrence. Additionally, the focus on eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives has been criticized as ideologically driven rather than a genuine effort to reduce waste.
The broader implications of these workforce reductions are profound. The loss of experienced personnel threatens the continuity and effectiveness of essential public services, from education and environmental protection to tax enforcement and national security. Moreover, the rapid implementation of these cuts without comprehensive impact assessments may lead to unforeseen consequences, including increased unemployment, reduced public trust in government institutions, and long-term economic ramifications.
To mitigate the adverse effects of these workforce reductions, it is essential to implement a more measured approach that includes comprehensive impact assessments, stakeholder consultations, and phased implementation plans. This strategy would ensure that cost-cutting measures do not compromise the effectiveness of essential public services or erode public trust in government institutions.
Food for Thought
DOGE’s official website claims significant cost savings through measures like asset sales, contract cancellations, and workforce reductions. However, these claims have faced scrutiny for inaccuracies, including overestimations and double-counting savings. The “Savings/Wall of Receipts” section, intended to provide transparency, has been criticized for inconsistencies and errors. These issues raise questions about the reliability of DOGE’s reported achievements and the potential for unintended consequences stemming from its aggressive cost-cutting strategies.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on the resource URL to visit links where available
Partnership for Public Service (https://ourpublicservice.org/): A nonprofit organization dedicated to making the federal government more effective by promoting civil service excellence and innovation.
National Academy of Public Administration (https://napawash.org/): An independent, nonpartisan organization that provides expert advice to government leaders on critical management challenges.
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) (https://www.afge.org/): The largest federal employee union, representing federal and D.C. government workers nationwide and overseas.
Project on Government Oversight (POGO) (https://www.pogo.org/): A nonpartisan independent watchdog that investigates and exposes waste, corruption, and abuse of power in the federal government.
Center for American Progress (https://www.americanprogress.org/): An independent nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through bold, progressive ideas.
These resources offer valuable insights and support for understanding and navigating the challenges posed by the recent workforce reductions in federal agencies.
Our Values
Dear President Trump,
Last month we wrote wishing you well on your 2nd term in Office. This month we write to express concern about the negative tone your administration has put forward in many of it policies and pronouncements. We’d like to remind you of the values that are most important for a President to preserve when he or she serves as the custodian of our democracy. These values include the following:
Transparency: A commitment to sharing the reasoning, thinking, and information that goes into your decision-making process. In the first few weeks of your administration, we have found such transparency lacking. For example, what has Elon Musk’s DOGE team actually done? What data of ours do they have? What do they intend to do with it? Why can’t we know this?
Accountability: Too often it is unclear to us who in your administration is responsible for making decisions, and what happens if they get their decisions wrong. For example, who is accountable for your firing of government workers in different agencies? What if the workers who were fired were responsible for rendering services essential to protecting our lives? What happens to those services? Who is responsible for determining whether these workers were unjustly terminated.
Humility: At least occasionally Mr. President we would like to see you express some humility for the Office you hold and the decisions you make. As you know being President comes with a great deal of authority, power and responsibility. We understand your need to exert the authority of your office from time to time; but please don’t let muscle-flexing get out of hand. Always remember, acknowledge and be grateful to the citizens of your country that you serve.
Morality: While people may vary somewhat in their interpretations of current events, most of us have an inherent sense of what’s right and wrong. We feel a need to do good and combat evil. Sometimes Mr. President your moral stance is unclear to us. Your speeches often are laced with hate aimed at others. Please try and restrain yourself in the use of this kind of language; be more compassionate and do the right thing.
Avoid Retribution: Don’t take everything personally. We understand and appreciate the fact that you feel you’ve been wronged; that “the system” as you perceive it, has worked against you. It may be difficult for you to do but as President you need to let it go. It is not the job of the President to bring his or her personal vendettas with them to the job. You are President of all the people now; not just those who voted for you but those who voted against you and those who oppose your policies. Your job is to look for ways that can unite us and bring us together.
Be Independent from Outside Influence: You must realize that people will seek to court favor with you just because you are the President and in a seat of power.
Please stand guard against the temptation to do political favors for those who try to buy seats at your table. In your first administration there were accusations that your businesses profited from deals that were made because those that made them wanted to be in the good graces of the President and his colleague. Please try and avoid a repeat of this kind of behavior.
Choose Country Over Party: While it is natural for you to enact policies that exclusively support the position of you and your party, don’t always have this be the rule. There are issues crucial to our security and quality of life that need bi-partisan support to succeed. In those instances, people look to you to lead the way by enlisting the support of leaders from the opposing party as well as your own.
Commit to Democracy and Rule of Law: Our country is based on a democratic system and the rule of law. This system is framed by our Constitution and our legal network. It is possible to ignore democracy, the rule of law, and even the Constitution once you are in power; and we have noticed that your administration sometimes leans in that direction. But we implore you not to go too far. You may not think rules and traditions matter as much as the policies you want to get done; but they matter greatly to most of our citizens and for those who come after us. So please show some respect the political legacy that you’ve inherited.
We hope you will take these suggestions in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.
Best Regards
The US RESIST NEWS OP ED TEAM